Talk:Moral War
One day we need to have a discussion about the validity of 1 man alliances declaring war. :I agree, I don't think pages like this are strictly necessary for inclusion. Michael von Preußen voicemail • nation ::That makes me a sad panda. EDIT: In all honesty, I don't see how removing information from the page helps the wiki at all, but okay, if you want to do it, that's perfectly fine. By the way, are you also removing all of Opethian's wars? --Vilien 01:28, November 18, 2009 (UTC) :::I'm not removing anything, I'm just de-listing it as a war. And as those "wars" occurred before my time, or at least before I was paying attention to international events, I'll not be touching them. Michael von Preußen voicemail • nation :Admin has ruled that 1 man AA's are valid alliances and may make use of the Alliance Announcements forum. If actual in-game war is declared, it's a war. However, this is not the case in this article, it's merely a protectorate agreement. Still, 1 man AA's can and have fought wars. Vilien, RV, and Opethian have all done so at one point or another. Locke-(Talk) 01:33, November 18, 2009 (UTC) ::It's not a protectorate agreement, I had no knowledge of Atticus until he developed a fixation with my alliance. The fact that I treat him as a joke does not take away from Locke's point, which is that an alliance is defined by the existence of an in-game AA. --Vilien 01:34, November 18, 2009 (UTC) :::Either way, it's not an alliance war. It's one nation vs an alliance. If I go rogue and attack someone, it's not an alliance war. It's an international incident, maybe. It's an event. It's not an alliance war. Michael von Preußen voicemail • nation :::Vilien, it's a protectorate. You posted it: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s=&showtopic=73753&view=findpost&p=1968753 And Michael, it *can* be an alliance war, if it is declared as such. Your regular rogue doesn't do so. But if they declare a war as an alliance in the AA forum, and commit to actual in-game attacks, it's an alliance war. Locke-(Talk) 01:41, November 18, 2009 (UTC) ::::The fact that I decided to treat him as a protectorate does not change the fact that Attica declared war on the Moralist Front. Again, as you said, it's an alliance war. --Vilien 01:43, November 18, 2009 (UTC) Right, let me make it clear. Admin may say one-man alliances are actual alliances, but for the purposes of this Wiki they are not. There's such a thing as being frivolous in the creation of articles. Now, in the case of this article, I have no problem with it existing and being labeled as a war or as an event. But it is not an alliance war, as it is between one alliance and one nation claiming to be an alliance. The minute there are two people on that alliance affiliation, I'll be more than happy to call it an alliance war. This is quite a debate over nothing, really, as I've not even brought up the possibility of deleting this article and I have no intention to do so. I simply have a problem with it being listed as an alliance war. Michael von Preußen voicemail • nation :The definition of an alliance in this wiki is up for group consensus. You do not own this wiki. You're an administrator, great, nobody cares. By accepted definitions in-game, one man constitutes an alliance. Why the hell would the wiki definition be any different? Your purpose here is not to draw arbitrary lines denoting what is an what isn't an alliance. There is a clear and accepted definition, and you're ignoring it. --Vilien 01:56, November 18, 2009 (UTC) ::I am making this based off of historical decisions made by myself, other administrators, and other users regarding "alliances", not simply off of my own opinion. If you want to start a vote over it, then go right ahead. Michael von Preußen voicemail • nation :::I'm sorry, what historical consensus led Opethian's wars to be included? Or are we just ignoring history that doesn't support our arguments? --Vilien 02:01, November 18, 2009 (UTC) ::::Alright, you have a point there. However, may I ask how my delisting it as an alliance war is not including it? It's still here, isn't it? Oh, and by the way, the "clear and defined" definition you're talking about was decided, if I'm to take your word at face value, by Admin, who, to my knowledge, has never actually ever had anything to do with this Wiki. Michael von Preußen voicemail • nation :::::He's sure had a hell of a lot to do with the game, which is what this wiki is based off of. It makes no sense to have separate standards for a wiki which directly corresponds to a game. The difference is that you've removed information from a page and removed a topic from the news because you don't consider it to be relevant, when that really isn't your decision to make. --Vilien 02:05, November 18, 2009 (UTC) ::::::Actually, it makes a lot of sense to have separate standards, as the wiki is a collaborative project, as you said yourself, and Admin is one person who made a decision. In the game, that's one thing, as he owns and controls it. He does not own and control this wiki. Now, I did remove the infobox, and that's what we're discussing. The news template, however, is entirely different, as neither alliance is large enough to consider it international news. There have been several discussions on this on Template talk:News css#International_News_Only.2C_please.21. Michael von Preußen voicemail • nation :::::::You're justifying a completely different standard from the actual game based upon the collaborative decision of, well, yourself. By your own admission, this fits the historical definitions of an alliance war. As such, you should treat it as one, and give it the template that all alliance wars use. Removing the template makes absolutely no sense. Your goal here is to improve the wiki, not to remove informative content. --Vilien 20:55, November 18, 2009 (UTC) While in no way am I agreeing that this is an alliance war, or that this should be listed as such, for the sheer purpose of diplomacy I have re-added the infobox for the interim. Michael von Preußen voicemail • nation